NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ADOLFO SASVIN SANTOS, No. 17-72239 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-680-520 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 29, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and DRAIN,*** District Judge. Luis Adolfo Sasvin Santos petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal,” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and deny the petition. “We review factual findings . . . for substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). This means that “to reverse such a finding, we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (cleaned up). 1. Sasvin Santos argues that the BIA erred in dismissing his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because, as a victim, witness, and reporter of gang extortion, he is a part of a particular social group at risk for future persecution. He contends that those who report gang activity to the police share the immutable characteristic of reporting a crime, are easily verifiable because of their interactions with the police, and are recognized by society as a discrete class of people. Although we have recognized that those who testify against gang members in a criminal trial can be members of a particular social group, see Henriquez- Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013), we have explicitly held that people who have only “filed a report with the police,” without more evidence of 2 social distinction, Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020), or are simply “potential witness[es] to anything that can be characterized as [a] crime committed by a gang member,” Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021), do not qualify as particular social groups. 2. Sasvin Santos next argues that the BIA erred in denying his CAT claim because it disregarded his testimony that the Guatemalan police work with gangs as well as country conditions reports and news articles evidence showing there is widespread corruption, extortion, and abuse within Guatemala’s police force. We deny Sasvin Santos’s petition because substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals